Obama primary opponent Bob Greene: Calif. man has energy plan for U.S. for next 1000 years

[FSSF]

25. Some things.

It appears your only source is the wiki which is it self not well sourced, lot's of blogs and news sources for something so technical and complex for which you would expect a lot of technical paper and critical studies. I feel the page is quite bias as well (that's my bias opinion of course).

Here's a quote from the most recent MIT study from the appendix about AHTR/MSRs which sums it up nicely :

"As a new reactor concept, there have been limited studies—thus the difficulty to credibly assess this concept."
(http://www.mit.edu/~jparsons/publications/MIT%20Future_of_Nuclear_Fuel_Cycle.pdf)

It also suggests USA carry on with LWRs and the once through cycle into the foreseeable future and says this about Thorium cycles for use with current reactors:

"The technology of thorium fuel does not offer sufficient incentives from a cost or waste point of view to easily penetrate the market."

On France:
France's grid is over saturated with inflexible nuclear power plants (that's why the dump underpriced electricity on Europe). 100% nuclear is impossible unless the technology becomes suitable for peak loads.

On the 100% WWS 2030 study:
A blog is not a proper critique of a study published in a peer review journal I'm afraid.